Date: Feb 16, 2013 5:04 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<f219de0c-b554-44a2-9e30-de63f83980d8@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 16, 1:04 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > On 15 Feb., 23:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > So WMs statements are

> >

> > > > there is a line l such that d and l

> > > > are coFIS

> >

> > > Of course, for every n there is a line 1, 2, 3, ..., n that is coFIS

> > .> to the diagonal 1, 2, 3, ..., n.

> >

> > Nope. a line is either coFIS to d or it is not.

> >

> > It makes sense to say

> >

> > For every n there is a line, l(n) such that

>

> increment my OOPs counter

Compared to WM's OOPS counter (which he never acknowledges) yours is

unmoving.

>

> > the nth FIS of l(n) is the nth FIS of d .

> > But this does not make l(n) coFIS to d.

> >

> > > > And there is not more than every n.

> >

> > > > there is no line l such that d and l

> > > > are coFIS

> > > That would only be true if there was an n larger than every n

> >

> > ?? The statement is yours. Are you now withdrawing it.

--